Daniels v. Young

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 20, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05077
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 DEVON MARTEEN DANIELS, CASE NO. C24-5077JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 BRIAN YOUNG, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Before the court is Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s report and 16 recommendation, in which he recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff Devin Marteen 17 Daniels’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint with prejudice and without leave to 18 amend. (R&R (Dkt. # 5); see Compl. (Dkt. # 4).) Mr. Daniels, who is proceeding pro se 19 and in forma pauperis (see IFP Order (Dkt. # 3)), filed a letter dated February 7, 2024, 20 which the court construes as constituting timely objections to the report and 21 recommendation. (Obj. (Dkt. # 6).) Having carefully reviewed the foregoing documents, 22 the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the report 1 and recommendation and DISMISSES Mr. Daniels’s civil rights complaint with 2 prejudice.

3 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 4 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court 5 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 6 by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the 7 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 8 if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

9 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because Mr. Daniels is proceeding pro se, the court must 10 interpret his complaint and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 11 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). 12 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires a district court to dismiss a claim filed in 13 forma pauperis “at any time” if it determines: (1) the action is frivolous or malicious;

14 (2) the action fails to state a claim; or (3) the action seeks relief from a defendant who is 15 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it is 16 based on “an indisputably meritless legal theory” or where the “factual contentions are 17 clearly baseless.” Neitske v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). “Clearly baseless” 18 factual contentions include “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 328; see also

19 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (reaffirming that “clearly baseless” 20 allegations subject to dismissal encompass those that are fanciful, fantastic, and 21 delusional). “[T]he district courts, who are ‘all too familiar’ with factually frivolous 22 // 1 claims . . . are in the best position to determine which cases fall into this category.” 2 Denton, 504 U.S. at 1734 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

3 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida recommends that the court dismiss Mr. Daniels’s 4 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because the factual allegations are 5 clearly baseless in that they are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional,” and the action is 6 therefore frivolous. (R&R at 2-3.) Magistrate Judge Tsuchida also recommends that the 7 court deny leave to amend on the basis of futility. (Id. at 1.) The court independently 8 concludes that, even liberally construed, Mr. Daniels’s allegations are clearly baseless.

9 (See Compl. at 5 (alleging Defendants violated Mr. Daniels’s Fourth Amendment rights 10 by “illegally” “spying” on him from a worldwide satellite, “eavesdropping” and 11 “communicating” with him, controlling his body and movements from a laptop, and 12 trying to kill him with explosives); see also id. (“I have the (FBI) inside my mind . . . .”).) 13 This action is frivolous and must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court

14 also independently concludes that leave to amend would be futile. 15 Mr. Daniels raises objections to the R&R. (See generally Obj.) He asserts that 16 Defendants attempted to kill him with explosives in 2016, not in 2010, as Magistrate 17 Judge Tsuchida noted in the report and recommendation. (Id. at 1; R&R at 2.) Mr. 18 Daniels also asserts this action is not frivolous because “the satellite came with a beam on

19 it” that Defendants “pointed at” him, which is how Defendants “abduct[ed]” his body.” 20 (Obj at 1.) Mr. Daniels’s objections only confirm that the factual allegations in the 21 complaint are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. Accordingly, the court ORDERS as 22 follows: 1 1. The court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 5); 2 2. Mr. Daniels’s complaint (Dkt. # 4), and this action, are DISMISSED with

3 prejudice and without leave to amend; and 4 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this order to Mr. Daniels and to 5 Magistrate Judge Tsuchida. 6 Dated this 20th day of February, 2024. A 7 JAMES L. ROBART 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22